S01.E11: The Devil's Mark

[AD55]

I watched it again.  I liked the first half less and the second half . . . well I can't say I liked it more, I can only say I disliked it less.  And I chalk that up to the fact that I am so pleased with Sam's portrayal of Jamie up until now that I am striving very hard to interpret Sam's performance in a manner consistent with *my* Jamie.  Cait's performance in the second half is pretty much spot-on and I applaud her for it, especially given the little she has to work with.

 

But yikes, that first half!.  Lotte continued to shine for me but the plot!  The changes from the book!  Claire's being . . . not so smart.  Ned waving pistols about.  Ugh.  It got worse on second viewing.  And I noticed that when Jamie and Claire are hiding as Geillis is carried to the pyre, Laogharie is clearly visible following with Father Bain-in-the-ass.  Surely Jamie saw her.  How are they going to dance around this in season 3?  Ooooh.  I've just had a thought.  Heading off to the speculation thread now.

 

I've now watched this episode 3 times, and I don't find Claire's behavior at the trial to be that dumb or rash. I suppose she could have lied when Laoghaire testified about the love potion, but that would have been out of character. There wouldn't have been any point in her lying about the changeling child since there were witnesses. In any event, her outbursts didn't strike me as being harmful to her case -- looking sober and reserved would have been just as damning and it was clear that she was going to be found guilty. I realize I'm in the minority in this, and perhaps I'm projecting as I can see myself losing it in similar circumstances. Claire has a finely honed sense of justice and her indignation at being accused by people whom she has tried to help doesn't seem all that strange. I wouldn't expect her to be calculated.

 

The more I see this episode, the more I like it. I'm even coming round to the way the writers handled the scene at the stones. While I did at first want Jamie to have tangible evidence that she is a time traveler, the fact that he pulled her back from the stones shows that he did believe her whether we think it's reasonable or not. As someone said up thread, he's always known she was hiding something and he's seen plenty of evidence that she is incapable of dissembling. Claire hasn't shown any signs that she is a candidate for Bedlam -- that, combined with Jamie's having been "born and bred" a highlander might be enough for him to trust her word.

 

For the most part, I have liked the series more than I did the book, which gives me confidence that Moore and Co. will come up with an acceptable rationale for Jamie's marriage to Laoghaire.

[bluebonnet]

I've been swayed.  Geillis was sober and reserved at the trial and it didn't help her case any.  

[WatchrTina]

 

I've been swayed.  Geillis was sober and reserved at the trial and it didn't help her case any.

That's actually a very good point.  But Geillis WAS a witch. She wasna dancing around in the moonlight in naught but a tea-towel for the fun of it ye ken.  She believed in it.  She'd been doing witchy stuff for YEARS and only her marriage to the fiscal had saved her.  He's gone.  But Claire is still the niece of the Laird by marriage and a relative stranger to the crowd.  If she'd been more careful she might have been able to talk her way out of the situation (without throwing Geillis under the bus).  But if she'd done that, then she wouldn't be the impulsive, head-strong Claire we know and love and occasionally want to strangle.

[peacefrog]

I kinda loved this episode. First time watching I did not pay attention much to trial because I was mentally getting excited for what comes after. I'm having problems with this in each episode.

 

Second viewing the trial was amazing! So much better than the book where I found it dull. Acting was great and had no problem with Claire not realizing the truth about Geillis until the scar. So much was going on with her and everything was moving quickly. As far as the Nathan Hale quote "controversy":) I think the simplest explanation is that the author is American and it's what she would say. 

 

I thought they did justice to the stones scene. I definitely would not have complained if there was more though. 

 

Still don't see where Leogharie's involvement is a problem later on. It doesn't seem all that different than how believable he wouldn't know what she did in the books. In other words, it's not!

Maybe Ron will redeem her in 3 and she will take the place of Mary McNabb? Lol *runs and ducks*

[bluebonnet]

 

 

Still don't see where Leogharie's involvement is a problem later on. It doesn't seem all that different than how believable he wouldn't know what she did in the books. In other words, it's not!

Maybe Ron will redeem her in 3 and she will take the place of Mary McNabb? Lol *runs and ducks*

They are completely different scenarios.  It's believable if Jamie doesn't find out that Thomas passed Claire the note that sent her to town, which is what Laoghaire did in the book.  A private note passing is not at all the same as a very public and exciting witch trial.  Everyone now knows what Laoghaire has done whether or not Jamie conveniently missed seeing her or Claire neglects to tell Jamie about it.  

 

I do agree with speculation that Laoghaire will be a Mary McNabb sort of figure.  Not sure about the redemption, my thoughts are more that some of the plot there is changed and Laoghaire fakes a pregnancy to trick Jamie into marriage.  

[chocolatetruffle]

So according to the RDM's podcast, Toni G., the writer, said she had written a much shorter version of the witch trial because she wanted to focus more on Jamie & Claire at the stones.  However, RDM wanted more witch trial.  He said he wanted it to be like a real trial with lots of witnesses (originally it was just changeling mother, Father Bain and hosebeast).  She also said that she had written and filmed a detailed voiceover for Claire during the decision scene, but RDM decided he only wanted a ring shot, so they had to go back at a later time in the shooting schedule and film it.  

[Nidratime]

She also said that she had written and filmed a detailed voiceover for Claire during the decision scene, but RDM decided he only wanted a ring shot, so they had to go back at a later time in the shooting schedule and film it.

 

 

Although there were never any guarantees of Outlander being successful enough to continue pass this season, I wonder if having a shorter version of this visit to Craig na dun was a deliberate decision so as not to detract from the same sort of visit at the end of Season 2, which has a much different ending.

[ElsieH]

I wonder if they consulted DG about that. And I wonder what her opinion is. Maybe there is more to it in the next episode, but I would rather it have gone down with less trial and more time at the stones. And even at that, having hosebeast there at the trial is still an add from the book isn't it?

[chocolatetruffle]

I also wonder how Jamie not seeing Claire travel (and her not being sure the stones will work again) will impact his decision to take her back.  That is really blindly going on faith.  Yeah, hosebeast was not at the trial in the book.  Although, I don't think Jamie actually saw her.  Re his decision to marry her:  I can fanwank that Jamie never goes back to Leoch and certainly not to Cranesmuir, so it's unlikely that he would have heard about her involvement.

[bluebonnet]

He doesnt have to go back to Castle Leoch or Cranesmuir.  The story can spread.  It's like how who Claire is had spread to Lallybroch so that they all knew of her by the time she and Jamie arrived.  "Ye canna keep anything secret in the Highlands."  Unless, of course, it's something that no one saw, like with the note.  

 

People move around, bringing gossip and such with them.  I'd imagine the story would also follow Laoghaire when she moves into Jamie's neighborhood.  

 

ETA: I'm sure RDM has a plan to incorporate this change in plot.  My only point is that a plot where no one hears about what Laoghaire did and/or never talks about it sounds pretty terrible.  People saw, people will hear, people will talk, it will follow Laoghaire.  

Edited April 21, 2015 by bluebonnet

[AD55]

They are completely different scenarios.  It's believable if Jamie doesn't find out that Thomas passed Claire the note that sent her to town, which is what Laoghaire did in the book.  A private note passing is not at all the same as a very public and exciting witch trial.  Everyone now knows what Laoghaire has done whether or not Jamie conveniently missed seeing her or Claire neglects to tell Jamie about it.  

 

I do agree with speculation that Laoghaire will be a Mary McNabb sort of figure.  Not sure about the redemption, my thoughts are more that some of the plot there is changed and Laoghaire fakes a pregnancy to trick Jamie into marriage.  

 

Maybe Jamie will let her off the hook because she believed in the love potion and thus actually does think Claire is a witch.  "Christ Almighty, Claire, what were you thinking giving an impressionable melted candle like Laoghaire a love potion?"

 

Count me among those who find it absurd that Claire neglected to tell Jamie that Laoghaire sold her out. I don't care how many years had passed, I am sure I would have found occasion -- sometime in between discussions of our favorite books and movies -- to tell my husband the little bitch he flirted with almost got me killed.

Edited April 21, 2015 by AD55

[mledawn]

Maybe Jamie will let her off the hook because she believed in the love potion and thus actually does think Claire is a witch.  "Christ Almighty, Claire, what were you thinking giving an impressionable melted candle like Laoghaire a love potion?"

 

Count me among those who find it absurd that Claire neglected to tell Jamie that Laoghaire sold her out. I don't care how many years had passed, I am sure I would have found occasion -- sometime in between discussions of our favorite books and movies -- to tell my husband the little bitch he flirted with almost got me killed.

 

Pretty much the first thing out of my mouth once I was calm would've been about frigging Laoghaire and the garbage she pulled.

 

But, more importantly, I have never heard of anyone being referred to as an impressionable melted candle before and my heart has filled with joy at this new phrase I will undoubtedly use IMMEDIATELY.

[AD55]

Pretty much the first thing out of my mouth once I was calm would've been about frigging Laoghaire and the garbage she pulled.

 

But, more importantly, I have never heard of anyone being referred to as an impressionable melted candle before and my heart has filled with joy at this new phrase I will undoubtedly use IMMEDIATELY.

Honesty requires that I credit the estimable Murtagh for the phrase "melted candle."

[chocolatetruffle]

Count me among those who find it absurd that Claire neglected to tell Jamie that Laoghaire sold her out. I don't care how many years had passed, I am sure I would have found occasion -- sometime in between discussions of our favorite books and movies -- to tell my husband the little bitch he flirted with almost got me killed.

 

I know, right.  It's much more implausible to me that Claire wouldn't have something at sometime during the next year and a half.  Ned planted the seed that Colum was behind the whole thing, but the memory of Laoghaire's words at that trial should still be fresh in her mind - especially the dancing on her ashes line. Bitch.

[ElsieH]

To me, it's more implausible that Jamie didn't come straight out and ask. Claire, how did you end up getting arrested for witchcraft when I specifically asked you not to go near Geillis? Well Jamie, hosebeast said she needed my help, so I went.

[peacefrog]

Yeah, hosebeast was not at the trial in the book.  Although, I don't think Jamie actually saw her.  Re his decision to marry her:  I can fanwank that Jamie never goes back to Leoch and certainly not to Cranesmuir, so it's unlikely that he would have heard about her involvement.

Not a fanwank!

He never does go back to Leoch. Once he leaves with Claire they don't return, they stay at Lallybroch until Wentworth, then France. They don't return to the Highlands until before the 45 rising. Then after Culloden Jamie is in prison, then Helwater. He doesn't see Leogharie again at least 15 years later. Pretty good chance no one is left except for Ned Gowan and it must have slipped his mind.

[copshop]

The stones scene was definitely flawed, because as someone who has not read the books, I had no idea what Claire's motivation was. I thought it could just as easily have been that the stones did not work. I was especially glad to get the insight from the book readers about how Jaime held her hands to the stones, so they both knew without a doubt that she could leave if she wanted to (but I guess you never know where you will go--back to your "home year" or to another year entirely). I did love that he believed her right away, as that made sense to me. He know something was different about her, and it was he who told her about the folk song about the stones.

I wish the court scene had been reduced a bit and the revelation about Gaelis had been slowed a bit. It flew by so quickly.

[JennyMominFL]

I think among many young people in the UK today, it is more likely they aren't aware it ever was...

 

 

I think that is probably pretty close to the truth. :)

I have a lot of British friends, and year to them it was a blip on the radar on the  issues of empire. They had bigger fish to fry at the time. It's everything to us.. Not to them 

[mledawn]

Honesty requires that I credit the estimable Murtagh for the phrase "melted candle."

 

Good lord, I need to rewatch. That's awesome.

[AD55]

Good lord, I need to rewatch. That's awesome.

 

Murtagh compares Claire to a melted candle when he hauls her out of bed the morning of her wedding. I had to watch the episode several times -- just for the dialogue, mind you -- before I caught it. ;)

[ElsieH]

I needed captions to know that is what he said. I never would have figured that one out on my own (but several rewatches later, there is no doubt that is exactly what he said :) )

Edited April 21, 2015 by ElsieH

[springbarb]

I'm a bit disappointed that the voiceover for the decision scene was recorded; in my brain, the next episode starts with Claire and Jamie riding to Lallybroch with a Claire voiceover that details more of her decision process.

[SpiritSong]

So according to the RDM's podcast, Toni G., the writer, said she had written a much shorter version of the witch trial because she wanted to focus more on Jamie & Claire at the stones.  However, RDM wanted more witch trial.  He said he wanted it to be like a real trial with lots of witnesses (originally it was just changeling mother, Father Bain and hosebeast).  She also said that she had written and filmed a detailed voiceover for Claire during the decision scene, but RDM decided he only wanted a ring shot, so they had to go back at a later time in the shooting schedule and film it.

I've enjoyed Moore's adaptation for the most part but he completely screwed up this episode. He should have listened to the writer on all points. For someone as enamored with voice overs as he is this was the stupidest possible time to eliminate one. Especially since the show has built Frank up to be such a great guy, which the book didn't do, it makes Claire's decision way too casual or even incomprehensible. What a disappointment.

[AD55]

I have a question. I've read a couple of reviews by non-book readers who complimented the writers for making Claire's choice ambiguous -- ie, did she return to Jamie because she chose to or because the magic didn't work?

 

As a book reader, I have criticized the scene for being unclear on that score when the book is not. I can see, however, that this adds another dimension to the show for those who aren't familiar with the books. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

When I saw the Kubrick adaptation of The Shining, I was so terrified that I asked my book-reading date to tell me how it ended. He replied,  

The caretaker comes back and rescues the mother and her son. Two seconds later, Scatman Crothers took an axe to the chess. My date immediately threw up his hands and said, "Sorry! They changed the ending." I think pulling the rug out from under the book readers was a brilliant choice on Kubrick's part, even though I was furious at the time.

 

I'm trying to keep an open mind since this way of playing the scene seems to have worked for at least some non-book readers. I don't think Caitriona and Sam play the last scene in a way that suggests Claire finds herself stuck in 1743: "Bollocks, the magic didn't work. At least the sex is hot!" On the other hand, the ambiguity, if it exists, might add something to the remaining episodes as viewers witness Claire's devotion to Jamie and her heroism in mounting a rescue mission. It also takes book readers out of their comfort zone, which I like in principle. One problem with watching an adaptation is there are usually few or no surprises, and I love surprises.

 

What do other folks think?

[ScotchnSoda]

Some surprises I like; others not so much. In this case, all I can say is "Thank you, SpiritSong, for taking the words right out of my reluctant mouth!".

[GHScorpiosRule]

I'm trying to keep an open mind since this way of playing the scene seems to have worked for at least some non-book readers. I don't think Caitriona and Sam play the last scene in a way that suggests Claire finds herself stuck in 1943: "Bollocks, the magic didn't work. At least the sex is hot!"

I think you mean 1743?

[AD55]

I think you mean 1743?

Oops, must have been a Freudian slip. :)

[CalamityBoPeep]

So, I've watched the episode two more times since my post back on page 1 of this thread, and I guess I'm slowly coming around to accepting the sad loss of our intensely complex emotional book scene at the stones.  I'm appreciating more the subtle emotional development of the scene at the stones in the show, and seeing how nicely it was done.  It does have a rhythm and beauty of its own.  And watching the whole after-trial sequence through Jamie's perspective, as he tries to memorize every nuance in Claire's motions and reactions, is actually quite touching.  

 

Guess I'm getting over the disappointment and am ready to move on to appreciating the new version on its own terms.

 

However, I still believe it was a mis-step to handle it the way they did.  But I've read back over the scenes in the book and am just really glad that I'm not losing my head-Jamie to the show.  Those who never read the books will probably never fall for the guy like I did, but they'll still be getting a pretty good show, it seems. 

 

 

Eta:  Does anyone else post here, then immediately think "oh, God, I hope I had the Book Talk thread open?"  LOL  

Edited April 23, 2015 by CalamityBoPeep

[maraleia]

Oops, must have been a Freudian slip. :)

No worries. I corrected the year for you.

[Petunia846]

I'm rewatching right now before I watch Lallybroch early, and I had to stop and pause just to comment on a little detail I hadn't noticed before. When Claire is alone at the stones and we have the shot of her hands where we can see the two rings, she is very clearly touching the one that has Jamie's ring and running her finger over the short line that's right below her pinky. That line, to palm readers, is the marriage line, and the number of them indicates the number of deep relationships you'll have. I actually thought any lines there indicated children, and I thought they were sneakily foreshadowing Bree, but apparently the children lines are little vertical lines that cross the marriage line. (Thank you Google.) I thought that was a really nice call back to Mrs. Graham and her palm reading, though, of course the line on Cait's hand isn't really forked, but still! Shout out for details, show. Nice one.

[WatchrTina]

Hey Petunia846 if that's what they were doing -- giving a nod back to the palm-reading in the first episode and the books -- they yay to the production team for such attention to detail and giving a shout-out to the readers.  But I remain open to the possibility that you are imbuing the scene with more meaning than they intended -- especially since the scenes of Claire looking at her hands were pick-up shots filmed much later.  In the Podcast, Ron talks about dragging one of the stones around from place to place until they had an opportunity on a shooting day to set it up in the background and shoot those shots of Claire studying her hands.  If I recall correctly they decided they needed them after they decided (during editing) to not use voice-over for that scene -- a decision that many of us have lamented.

 

What you noticed is a nice detail, but I'm still disappointed over the way the choice was depicted (barely) and the way the power of the stones was demonstrated to Jamie (not at all).  #StillBitter

[Petunia846]

Not saying it makes anything perfect, but just a little something others might want to watch for. I'm more apt to believe it was something Cait did anyway, like the way Sam taps his fingers in the wedding episode.

[chocolatetruffle]

Not saying it makes anything perfect, but just a little something others might want to watch for. I'm more apt to believe it was something Cait did anyway, like the way Sam taps his fingers in the wedding episode.

 

Yeah, I think this little detail was most likely an actor choice.  Tina, I've read a few forums and reviews from non-book readers and there apparently is a great deal of ambiguity out there as to what actually happened at the stones.  Most seem to think that the stones didn't work and Claire had to stay, so your point about her choice is well taken.  I also realized that book readers knew a lot more about how the stones worked at this point than TV viewers, like dates the stones were open and when they weren't and how dangerous it was for Claire to cross.

[ScotchnSoda]

Speaking of Sam tapping his fingers . . . What about Jamie's habit of running his fingers thru his hair and, in Book Claire's words, making it "stand straight out" ? I miss that one.

[AD55]

I thought that was a really nice call back to Mrs. Graham and her palm reading, though, of course the line on Cait's hand isn't really forked, but still! Shout out for details, show. Nice onewh.

 

I agree. I immediately thought of Mrs. Graham's reading when I first watched that scene and assumed the reference was intentional on the part of Cait or the director or both. 

[ally862]

Just piping in because I haven't read the books and just watched all the episodes this week. I've been trying to stay unspoiled but had to peak at this thread after that episode :) I didn't actually see anything but wanted to comment on people who are saying they're not doing a good job of showing Claire's love for Jamie and I 100% agree. I adore Jamie but I don't see Claire being as attached to him as he is to her. I wanted her to stay for Jamie and figured she would because where else would the show go if she left but, I think based on what they've shown us, it didn't make sense for her to stay.

[AheadofStraight]

 

Speaking of Sam tapping his fingers . . . What about Jamie's habit of running his fingers thru his hair and, in Book Claire's words, making it "stand straight out" ? I miss that one.

 

Maybe the makeup and hair folks don't want him to do that?

[methodwriter85]

 

While I did at first want Jamie to have tangible evidence that she is a time traveler, the fact that he pulled her back from the stones shows that he did believe her whether we think it's reasonable or not.

 

That's how I kind of viewed it. Also, that Jamie just trusts Claire enough to know that she's not lying.

 

I just finished reading the book so I haven't really "lived" in this book for decades, and I wasn't really bothered by the shortchanging at the stones. I thought overall this episode just worked.

 

Also agree that "fucking barbeque" is the v.p. line of this episode. I also interpreted that Claire didn't immediately catch on when Geillis said "1968" because as someone from 1945, 1968 isn't really a year yet. I do really like how they made the smallpox scar the "Mark of the Devil" and Lotte Verbeek just absolutely exceeded my expectations for Geillis's sacrifice scene.

[TaurusRose]

Claire's confession should have been so much bigger than it was.  Both actors did extremely well for what they had to work with but it felt really truncated and underplayed, like they just needed to keep things moving so they could get to the "choice" at the end.  If I hadn't read the books, I'm honestly not sure what I would have thought happened at the stones with the fade to black.  Did it not work for her this time?  Or what made her decide to stay and forgo all the safety and convenience of her own time for this place where she'd nearly been burned for witchcraft a day or so before?  Especially when we were nearly beat over the head in the first half the season with gotta get to the stones, gotta get to the stones.  And count me among those who were underwhelmed with the way the scene at the stones was shown.  

 

Look, I love the chemistry between these actors as much as anybody.  It's obvious that the characters have something wonderful happening between them beyond really great sex.  But the choice doesn't feel nearly as organic here.  The meandering pacing of the first half and the rushed pacing of the second half of the season have really muddled things to hamper my suspension of disbelief that Claire could really be at the point to make the choice she does.

I haven't read the books and don't plan to, but I think non-book readers aren't being given enough credit for understanding things as presented. Maybe there are some who don't, but I'm not one of them. As a lifelong fan of the fantasy genre, I assumed Claire was being pulled toward the stones by the magic within them. I mean come on. She traveled through time. How could she have accomplished this without magic? It was obvious from the beginning that the stone ring was a mystical, powerful place. Such places reveal their magic only to chosen people. I was surprised to learn that Gellis was also a time traveler. I had completely accepted her as a magical creature because the actress herself has such a fey-like quality. I'm not sure why people are having a problem with the way the scene where Jamie leaves Claire alone with the stones is cut. I never for a minute thought that she went forward in time, changed her mind and came back. Who would do that? At least, I wouldn't. I am sold that she is as deeply in love with Jamie as he is with her. And if I had bonded with someone the way she has with Jamie there is no way modern conveniences would trump my heart. And finally, I often wish I lived in a time when the world wasn't so fast-paced and technology driven. We've given up a lot of ourselves living in the time what we are in. Yes, there is a lot of good, but there is also a lot of bad, and we are still fighting a lot of the same injustices that were being fought in the 18th century.

Other things I have NO problem with: the pacing as it relates to Claire's choice or Jamie's acceptance of her truth. First off, Claire has been in 1743 for months and months now, and this isn't a period in history where you can take anything for granted. People were superstitious, the church ruled with utmost authority, most were uneducated and politics were deadly. Kings weren't figureheads, and lords (or lairds in this case) were the masters of their domain, women and children were property, and the occupying force could be brutal and were totally dismissive of the people they had invaded, their culture and traditions. Heck, you could die on your way to feeding the chickens. So, if you fell in love with someone, you didn't act as if you had all the time in the world to get on with it, because there was every possibility that you did not. I accept that her emotions for Jamie were heightened by the era she found herself in, but the man himself was no small factor in any of this. The man that Jamie is certainly wooed and won her heart in a way that Frank had not and could not. As for Jamie believing her, no matter what Jamie says about his education, there's a part of him that believes in Old Nick and changeling babies, a person who is already entertaining the supernatural isn't likely to think Claire mad or a liar, especially if he knows and trusts her.

Edited April 17, 2016 by taurusrose

[Anothermi]

Wrong thread. Thanks SassAndSnacks!  Moving this post to the NO Book Talk Thread. Perhaps I should enlarge my font so I can see little details like "Book talk" and "No book talk".

 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by Anothermi

[SassAndSnacks]

@Anothermi - I don't want you to be spoiled.  You're in the wrong thread!!